"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (3 Viewers)

[Admiral Beez]

Why would they be aggressors if they are simply trying take back their land that was taken from them?

To be fair, Ukraine was reticent to make a move to retake the Donbas and Crimea until Russia unwisely launched a renewed attack, one which the West would not let stand. To have the same conditions, Georgia needs Russia to launch an attack on their remaining territory, one that provokes the West to provide similar aid to Georgia that they've given Ukraine.

So, that explains their reticence. But no matter, the opportunity is now, Russia is weakened militarily. Now's your chance Georgia. Once this Ukraine war has a negotiated peace, with whatever Russia's government becomes settling into its new path, the West won't support anything that again stirs the pot. Georgia must act now.



But to their credit, Georgia is making some moves.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Why would they be aggressors if they are simply trying take back their land that was taken from them?

That frontier is "peaceful" right now. If Georgia attacks, that make them the agressors, objetively.

I don't mean they are the bad guys or that they don't have reasons to attack and grab back their land, just that they could be regarded as agressors and give Rusia an alibi to prosecute a bigger scale war now or in the future.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That frontier is "peaceful" right now. If Georgia attacks, that make them the agressors, objetively.

I don't mean they are the bad guys or that they don't have reasons to attack and grab back their land, just that they could be regarded as agressors and give Rusia an alibi to prosecute a bigger scale war now or in the future.

It is still their land, they would be taking back what is rightfully theirs and was taken by the real aggressor, Russia.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It is still their land, they would be taking back what is rightfully theirs and was taken by the real aggressor, Russia.

Well sure, I don't think anyone is arguing that point. I doubt there are many/any Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. When the time is right, Georgia could probably send in a small force to take over.... but Georgia needs a pretense to act.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well sure, I don't think anyone is arguing that point. I doubt there are many/any Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. When the time is right, Georgia could probably send in a small force to take over.... but Georgia needs a pretense to act.

I think you mean pretext and not "pretense"?

In any event, the pretext would be "recovering territory wrongfully seized from us by Russia", I'd think.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well sure, I don't think anyone is arguing that point. I doubt there are many/any Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. When the time is right, Georgia could probably send in a small force to take over.... but Georgia needs a pretense to act.

Well, yes, someone is. Our friend said Georgia does not want to be seen as an aggressor. They are not the aggressor. Period. They have been occupied by an aggressor the entire time. Why would they need justification to re-take their land?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think you mean pretext and not "pretense"?

In any event, the pretext would be "recovering territory wrongfully seized from us by Russia", I'd think.

Exactly, I understand they would need support from NATO to do such an undertaking, but Georgia already has all the justification it needs. They are the defender, not the aggressor.

Now, having said that. If they are going to wait support from NATO they may need to wait. NATO can only provide so much support without degrading its own capabilities. I think they already have all their eggs in the Ukrainian basket.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well, yes, someone is. Our friend said Georgia does not want to be seen as an aggressor. They are not the aggressor. Period. They have been occupied by an aggressor the entire time. Why would they need justification to re-take their land?

I agree, Georgia does not want to be seen as an aggressor. Otherwise they would have attacked Abkhazia and South Ossetia already. If tomorrow China attacks Vladivostok to regain what was stolen from them, we could argue China has every right to take back their land. But the world would still consider China an aggressor nation.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Well, yes, someone is. Our friend said Georgia does not want to be seen as an aggressor. They are not the aggressor.

Perhaps that Georgia don't want to do the first shot is a better wording that agressor.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree, Georgia does not want to be seen as an aggressor. Otherwise they would have attacked Abkhazia and South Ossetia already. If tomorrow China attacks Vladivostok to regain what was stolen from them, we could argue China has every right to take back their land. But the world would still consider China an aggressor nation.

Disagree. China and Georgia have one huge difference, and that is the Russian occupation of Georgian territory is recent and ongoing.

Using your logic, we need to rewrite the entire globe. I guess we should all be Romans, Vikings, or some other ancient nation-state.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I see a Mongolian herdsman emerging from his yurt.
"As a descendant of the Great Khan, I lay claim to all the lands historically belonging to the Mongol Empire!"

 

[WARSPITER]

Disagree. China and Georgia have one huge difference, and that is the Russian occupation of Georgian territory is recent and ongoing.

Using your logic, we need to rewrite the entire globe. I guess we should all be Romans, Vikings, or some other ancient nation-state.

That will be easy. Just identify as ... Roman, Viking, Persian, Sumerian, general issue Celt - then you can claim the bloody lot.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I see a Mongolian herdsman emerging from his yurt.
"As a descendant of the Great Khan, I lay claim to all the lands historically belonging to the Mongol Empire!"

Exactly

 

[GrauGeist]

Vladivostok was ceeded under a legally binding treaty between the respective governments. If anyone would have a claim to it, it's Taiwan, since they were the actual government of China before the communists seized power and forced the government to relocate to Formosa.

The territory in Georgia was seized and occupied by military force.

When the Soviet Union fell, the nations that emerged had borders established (or reestablished) with Moscow's participation in the international recognition process. From that point onward, rolling in with tanks under the auspices of "it used to be ours!" or "we're here to save people that *may* speak our language" is nothing more than conquest.

Georgia has every right to go in and remove the occupying forces just as Ukraine does.

 

[WARSPITER]

Vladivostok was ceeded under a legally binding treaty between the respective governments. If anyone would have a claim to it, it's Taiwan, since they were the actual government of China before the communists seized power and forced the government to relocate to Formosa.

The territory in Georgia was seized and occupied by military force.

When the Soviet Union fell, the nations that emerged had borders established (or reestablished) with Moscow's participation in the international recognition process. From that point onward, rolling in with tanks under the auspices of "it used to be ours!" or "we're here to save people that *may* speak our language" is nothing more than conquest.

Georgia has every right to go in and remove the occupying forces just as Ukraine does.

That's it in a nutshell. Georgia would not be the aggressor as they would be simply be removing the aggressor.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Vladivostok was ceeded under a legally binding treaty between the respective governments. If anyone would have a claim to it, it's Taiwan, since they were the actual government of China before the communists seized power and forced the government to relocate to Formosa.

The territory in Georgia was seized and occupied by military force.

When the Soviet Union fell, the nations that emerged had borders established (or reestablished) with Moscow's participation in the international recognition process. From that point onward, rolling in with tanks under the auspices of "it used to be ours!" or "we're here to save people that *may* speak our language" is nothing more than conquest.

Georgia has every right to go in and remove the occupying forces just as Ukraine does.

Well said, and explained very well.

I'll stand by my comment, Georgia is not an aggressor if they chose to fire the first shots. Effectively it would be a counter offensive.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Georgia has every right to go in and remove the occupying forces just as Ukraine does.

No one is suggesting otherwise. But having the right to do something is not the same as being able to do it.

 

[SaparotRob]

To be fair, Ukraine was reticent to make a move to retake the Donbas and Crimea until Russia unwisely launched a renewed attack, one which the West would not let stand. To have the same conditions, Georgia needs Russia to launch an attack on their remaining territory, one that provokes the West to provide similar aid to Georgia that they've given Ukraine.

So, that explains their reticence. But no matter, the opportunity is now, Russia is weakened militarily. Now's your chance Georgia. Once this Ukraine war has a negotiated peace, with whatever Russia's government becomes settling into its new path, the West won't support anything that again stirs the pot. Georgia must act now.



But to their credit, Georgia is making some moves.

Love the tweet linked showing Gerasimov(?) giving an update.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No one is suggesting otherwise. But having the right to do something is not the same as being able to do it.

Actually, stating they don't want to be seem as aggressors is doing just that.

We'll move along though. I think we have proven the opposite is true.

Edit: I think we all understand now the intent of the original poster.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Actually, stating they don't want to be seem as aggressors is doing just that.

We'll move along though. I think we have proven the opposite is true.

English isn't my mother language but the bold part (my emphasis) I think is different enough than saying that they are the agressors.

Anyway, I'm done with this